tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post4902861686922605400..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Hyperlinks, making available and the 'new public' -- or just a dead end?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-71613646840167358522014-02-14T18:02:15.956+00:002014-02-14T18:02:15.956+00:00The Court did not separate out the link itself, pe...The Court did not separate out the link itself, perhaps facilitating communication of the work, and the end-user's act triggering the communication, which is not that of the link-provider's act. Did it thus create a new type of intermediary liability -- consistently with prior law? <br /><br />I do not, however, see "intention" entering into the determination of the extent of any public addressed by the initial authorized posting the work. Absent "restrictions" on such initial access, the author or other right-holder makes the work "public" worldwide. <br /><br />Is this approach consistent with other decisions localizing the audience addressed by a site, say, for purposes of choice of law or jurisdiction?Paul Edward Gellerhttp://www.pgeller.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-77112668603060580832014-02-14T16:14:58.370+00:002014-02-14T16:14:58.370+00:00This decision - and much of the discussion leading...This decision - and much of the discussion leading up to it - looks (to me) like an attempt to force on the web intuitive models formed by non-technical people that are (a) technically incorrect; and (b) unstable.<br /><br />The problem is that at its most basic level all a "link" is, is a bit of markup that indicates an address where a work might be made available by whoever it is who operates the relevant website. It is a textual statement that a work might be found in a particular place.<br /><br />How is it (in principle) different from my writing "you can find a copy of The Hobbit in Pagwell Central Library" or even "if you google for you will find..."?<br /><br />The argument, in so far as I can discern it, is that a hyperlink allows a browser to automatically allow access to a work, whereas my writing in English requires a human to interpret it and take autonomous action (though of course hyperlinks can also be read and acted on by humans - it is just that most people don't know how to do so).<br /><br />But this distinction is an unstable one. AI will become (and probably is in some cases) good enough to read some of the plain English statements and automate finding works based on them. Does one "make available" in those circumstances?<br /><br />Certainly automatic reading of (say) OSCOLA citations is already here.<br /><br />So, while I welcome the effect of the decision, I think we are moving into never-never land territory where the lawfulness of mentioning a work depends on facts that cannot be known or controlled by the mentioner. That does not seem sensible to me.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.com